5 comments:

Friday's 360 started with one and a half segments on the Philadelphia cop shot by a guy "for ISIS". I was surprised because I had expected political news to start the show, maybe a lot on Trump's speech in Burlington VT yesterday. However, the Philadelphia shooting got a lot of attention. Miguel Marquez reported from Philly that the guy was in custody, had confessed and his background was being investigated. Deborah Feyerick reported on the stelen police gun the guy used. Peter Bergen and Tim Clemente discussed the ISIS connection and the guy's mental health issued.

The second segment started with a Randi Kaye report on ISIS propaganda and other ISIS-inspired attacks in the U.S. and around the world.The last half of the segment covered the capture of Mesican drug lord "El Chapo". Rafael Romo had all the info.

Then came the Trump report. He's tops in a new NH poll but I didn't stay. When I checked back later the on-screen title was "Woman Escorted From Trump Rally" and away I went again.

I didn't like the segment on last night's Town Hall meeting with Obama about gun control. Gary Tuchman's report was not on what Obama's executive actions will do and the effect they will have but on gun owner's perceptions. Tuchman covered a group of gun owners watching the Town Hall and asked them what they thought. The repsonses were entirely typical. Drew Griffin's report on the absurdity of the conspiracy theories about Obama and gun control was pretty good. Griffin covered not only Obama's executive actions and comments but also the "Jade Helm" military exercise in Texas last year and how that was convoluted into a hostile government takeover of Texas action or something. Loved the bit near the end when Griffin said those "who benefit from conspiracy theories have allowed them to swirl" right then there was Trump saying something stupid.

I liked the short segment on the Powerball's incredibly big jackpot tomorrow; loved seeing Richard Quest explain the odds, the payout and the taxes.

It's been a while since we've seen the Ridiculist and this one about Marco Rubio's somewhat high heels had several good snarky comments. However, when Anderson started with a comment on "choice" I dreamed of the day when Anderson would have a segment on how ridiculous it is for the GOP presidential candidates to be anti-choice when it comes to women's reproductive choices.

Survey Time! How many of you knew who Gus Kenworhty is? I didn't and had to google him. Finding out he's a freestyle skier didn't make me want to watch the clip from Anderson's New Year's Eve show because however wonderful he might be you still gotta deal with Kathy Griffin standing there screeching.

Anderson was still talking about how gun owners are against the president's background check proposals and that they're incapable of trusting him no matter how he tries to explain his position. It is not the fault of the president that there are ignorant, biased and stubborn idiots out there who refuse to listen to reason and facts, but it IS the fault of news organizations and reporters like AC who legitimize those unfounded fears and give them credence instead of stating that they're flat out wrong.

I find it a bit annoying that a majority of people on this site complain about AC not being objective, and then when he is being objective hes attacked for it. AC asked the conspiracy question because a part of being a journalist is looking at both sides of an issue. CNN in general has both Republicans and Dems on their show to give viewers multiple perspectives to an issue.

So I don't quite understand why everyone on this site believes that AC is biased or that he's Pro-guns, simply because he asked a question that happened to be in favor of Pro-gun people. Yes, the majority of AC's questions to Obama were critical of his plan. But it wouldn't be an interview if AC just asked him questions that agreed with Obama's plan. The point is to ask those questions so that the person being interviewed can explain themselves or give their point of view.

And besides that, the TownHall had both Pro-gun people and anti-gun people there to ask the president questions. Yet, everyone's upset because CNN tried to be unbiased by allowing people with different opinions to ask the president questions.

CNN IS IN NO WAY "UNBIASED" AND THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WERE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS WERE PRO-GUN EXCEPTFOR THE CHILD WHOSE BROTHER WAS KILLED BY GUN VIOLENCE, AT THE END OF THE PROGRAM.AND IF ANDERSON WERE SO 'UNBIASED' HOW COME THE PRESIDENT BECAME UPSET WITH HIM WITH HIS "UNBIASED"CONSPIRACY THEORY QUESTION? YES, THE QUESTION WAS BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE GUN LOBBY AND WHILE WE'REON THE SUBJECT, ANDERSON AND CNN ASKED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ATTEND THIS TOWN HALLMEETING AND BE BOMBARDED WITH QUESTIONS FROM MOSTLY NRA MEMBERS, BECAUSE AS WAS STATED AT THE BEGINNING, THE NRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REFUSED TO COME. THE JOB OF A JOURNALIST IS TO BE OBJECTIVE,NOT SUBJECTIVE. IF THE THE ROOM IS FILLED WITH GUN TOTING, GUN LOVING, LOBBYISTS, THAN QUESTIONINGSHOULD BE GEARED TO REPRESENT THE ADMINISTRATION'S POINT OF VIEW....WHICH IN FACT, IT WASN'T.IF YOU CARED TO LISTEN CAREFULLY, MOST OF THE AUDIENCE, DID NOT HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. THEY WERE THESAME OPINIONS POSED IN A DIFFERENT FASHION.AS FOR PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG.....WE CALL IT LIKE WE SEE IT.

I agree with anon 11:09 and many others do as well judging from the criticism AC has received about his "conspiracy" question to the president--I've seen a number of articles on media sites saying that AC should've known better than to ask such a ludicrous question, it made look less than credible as a reporter.